The New Machiavelli — Niccolo Machiavelli — John Shaqi
The New Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli · en
He paused to drink, and I think I cut in with ideas of my own. But one
is apt to forget one's own share in a talk, I find, more than one does
the clear-cut objectivity of other people's, and I do not know how far
I contributed to this discussion that followed. I am, however, pretty
certain that it was then that ideal that we were pleased to call
aristocracy and which soon became the common property of our set was
developed. It was Esmeer, I know, who laid down and maintained the
proposition that so far as minds went there were really only two sorts
of man in the world, the aristocrat and the man who subdues his mind to
other people's.
“'I couldn't THINK of it, Sir,'” said Esmeer in his elucidatory tones;
“that's what a servant says. His mind even is broken in to run between
fences, and he admits it. WE'VE got to be able to think of anything.
And 'such things aren't for the Likes of Us!' That's another servant's
saying. Well, everything IS for the Likes of Us. If we see fit, that
is.”
A small fresh-coloured man in grey objected.
“Well,” exploded Hatherleigh, “if that isn't so what the deuce are we
up here for? Instead of working in mines? If some things aren't to be
thought about ever! We've got the privilege of all these extra years for
getting things straight in our heads, and then we won't use 'em. Good
God! what do you think a university's for?”...
Esmeer's idea came with an effect of real emancipation to several of
us. We were not going to be afraid of ideas any longer, we were going
to throw down every barrier of prohibition and take them in and see what
came of it. We became for a time even intemperately experimental, and
one of us, at the bare suggestion of an eminent psychic investigator,
took hashish and very nearly died of it within a fortnight of our great
elucidation.
The chief matter of our interchanges was of course the discussion
of sex. Once the theme had been opened it became a sore place in
our intercourse; none of us seemed able to keep away from it. Our
imaginations got astir with it. We made up for lost time and went
round it and through it and over it exhaustively. I recall prolonged
discussion of polygamy on the way to Royston, muddy November tramps to
Madingley, when amidst much profanity from Hatherleigh at the serious
treatment of so obsolete a matter, we weighed the reasons, if any, for
the institution of marriage. The fine dim night-time spaces of the Great
Court are bound up with the inconclusive finales of mighty hot-eared
wrangles; the narrows of Trinity Street and Petty Cury and Market Hill
have their particular associations for me with that spate of confession
and free speech, that almost painful goal delivery of long pent and
crappled and sometimes crippled ideas.